All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
We appreciate your efforts in addressing the reviewers' concerns. I am pleased to inform you that PeerJ has accepted your manuscript.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Robert Winkler, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
We're going to present again the comments of one of the reviewers who has revised the edited version and considers there is still room for much improvement over the figures and specific details resumed below. Please focus on that on a thoroughly revised version submitted at your convenience.
The manuscript entitled: "Biochemical, anatomical, and histochemical characterization of cachichín (Oecopetalum mexicanum Greenm. & C.H. Thomps.) seeds" seeks to evaluate alterations in the carbohydrates and proteins composition of O. mexicanum submitted to different types of heating processing: raw form (not heated); boiling, commercial toasting, and controlled toasting. The presented results are interesting because they demonstrate that the chemical and structural composition of the seeds can vary depending on the different thermal treatments, which can directly affect the nutritional power of the seed. Studies of this nature are important as they expand the possibilities of using new species as nutritional sources for global food.
In general, the manuscript presents a clear language with professional English. However, the introduction should be more thorough and provide a comparison with previous information in the literature. Many essential aspects for understanding the work should be presented in the introduction. An example is the possible chemical interactions between the studied biomacromolecules (proteins and carbohydrates) that upon heating lead to the Maillard reaction, which was abruptly presented in the discussion.
Authors need to consider that not all readers know the details of this reaction of the topic addressed in the paper, requiring more explicit writing to be adopted to contemplate a more diverse audience. Furthermore, the number of figures needs to be revised. Many figures could be dropped, and others condensed into a single figure. The understanding of the results becomes even clearer. Finally, the raw data is inaccessible. As the raw data are in .csv format, it was impossible to access them because the data was misconfigured.
Please convert the raw data to .docx or .xlsx format.
I've attached the PDF submitted by the reviewer during the first round of review.
Nothing to declare
Nothing to declare
Nothing to declare
The authors addressed only a few suggestions of secondary importance. The main recommendations regarding restructuring the figures and improving the quality of the images were neglected. Therefore, I maintain my decision to Reject the manuscript.
I consider it to be a valuable report on the study of this appreciated product in the region of Veracruz, Mexico. All suggestions made in the review have been addressed by the authors.
All aspects related to the design of the experiments, as well as the statistical treatment, have been answered and corrected by the authors, which implies a considerable improvement in the quality of the manuscript.
The authors have attended to the suggestions made on the results and discussion section, as well as on the conclusions, which allows for a scientifically robust study.
The revised and corrected manuscript constitutes an important contribution to the knowledge of a food with great cultural value in the central region of the state of Veracruz, Mexico. To my knowledge, it is the first in-depth study carried out on the anatomical and biochemical aspects of the cachichín seed.
The manuscript has been reviewed and feedback has been provided. There are several areas that need to be clarified before resubmission. Specifically, the methods section is lacking critical details. For instance, there is no information on the amido black method, as the reference is not available and does not appear to be a proper methodological reference. Additionally, the concentration of PMSF was not provided and "a pinch of sodium dithioinite" is not an appropriate indication, as milligram or sub-milligram amounts should be specified. It is suggested to report total nitrogen using the Kjeldahl method, as it is less complicated than amino acid quantification with a single-amino acid standard, as typically done in food science. To address these issues, please submit a thoroughly revised version along with a detailed rebuttal letter.
The manuscript entitled: "Biochemical, anatomical, and histochemical characterization of cachichín (Oecopetalum mexicanum Greenm. & C.H. Thomps.) seeds" seeks to evaluate alterations in the carbohydrates and proteins composition of O. mexicanum submitted to different types of heating processing: raw form (not heated); boiling, commercial toasting, and controlled toasting. The presented results are interesting because they demonstrate that the chemical and structural composition of the seeds can vary depending on the different thermal treatments, which can directly affect the nutritional power seed. Studies of this nature are important as they expand the possibilities of using new species as nutritional sources for global food.
In general, the manuscript presents a clear language with professional English. However, the introduction is very superficial and contextualizes very little with the background information available in classical literature. Many essential aspects for understanding the work should be presented in the introduction. An example of this are the possible chemical interactions between the studied biomacromolecules and the Maillard reaction, which were abruptly presented in the discussion. Authors need to consider that not all readers know the minutiae of the topic addressed in the paper, requiring clearer writing to be adopted to contemplate a more diverse audience. Furthermore, I believe that the number of figures is unnecessary. Many figures could be dropped, and others condensed into a single figure. I believe that the understanding of the results becomes even clearer. Finally, the raw data is inaccessible. As the raw data are in .csv format, it was not possible to access them because the data was misconfigured. I believe that the authors, anticipating possible formatting problems, could have been more careful and converted the raw data to .docx or .xlsx format.
The work is original and presents a relevant and clear objective, and practically all methods have been partially carried out and described with rigor and clarity. Below I point out some problems and suggestions detected in the methodological questions.
Although I think that the data presented in the manuscript are still very superficial, I consider it to be a starting point for future research to provide relevant discoveries for academia and society in general. However, I believe that many aspects need to be improved, mainly from the statistical perspective and anatomical analyzes to make the work with an acceptable data set for publication. In addition, many aspects presented and discussed are guided by a speculative approach that do not match the real contributions of the study.
Despite the study relevance, the work has serious deficiencies that make it unfeasible to publish it in the PeerJ journal now.
Below I make some more targeted comments.
I consider that it is a very complete study on the biochemical and morphological aspects of the cachichín seed, which is a highly appreciated product in various regions of the state of Veracruz, Mexico. The article is written clearly and professionally. The bibliographical references are appropriate and up-to-date, and it has the structure of a professional scientific article.
I consider that the research approach shown in the article is within the aims and scope of the journal.
The research question is well defined and is relevant, since the cachichín seed is a product consumed ancestrally, but its study has only recently been carried out.
The methodology used, as well as the statistical design, are considered appropriate to respond to the objectives of the study.
As mentioned above, cachichín is an ancestral product, so any study that allows us to know and take advantage of its properties is highly relevant, particularly for those who either cultivate it or consume it. The results of the study allow to advance on the knowledge of this seed under the conditions in which it is consumed in the different regions of the state of Veracruz, Mexico. The conclusions are well stated and answer the research question.
Overall, it is a very well written article. I suggest only considering these annotations:
Linea 133 dithioinite or dithionite…?
Lines 168-179 Why is this section shaded?
Line 176 2%
Line 80%
In Table 1, add the labels for each treatment.
Raw (T1)
Boiled (T2)
Commercial Toasting (T3)
Controlled Toasting (T4)
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.